3rd Hampton Roads bridge-tunnel is the Big Lie:

[Editor's note:  This is 2nd in a series of articles by Robert O'Connor, president of Citizens Action Coalition Inc. taking issue with positions published by the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot.]


On Monday, September 23, 2002, the Virginian-Pilot presented the second part of a series of articles to continue their effort to convince you to vote for another tax for roads. The article, attempting to convince us that the so-called third crossing is needed, inadvertently demonstrates the opposite.

I call the Third Crossing "The Big Lie." The map on the front page of Monday's Pilot shows that the "crossing" connects to the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge. The Big Lie does NOT connect directly to the peninsula. The article declares, "It would be the third bridge-tunnel spanning the Hampton Roads harbor." In fact, The Big Lie would "run from Norfolk Naval Station across to Craney Island." WOW! Just where everyone needs to go.

The writer states that regional leaders are concerned that congestion at the Hampton Roads Bridge-tunnel "threatens to isolate South Hampton Roads from the rest of the state." The assumption is that commuters would use the new "crossing" instead. However, adding convoys of truck traffic to the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge will cause most drivers to seek a road free from trucks. How many drivers, locals and tourists, would deliberately subject themselves to a roadway choked by noisy, smoke-belching trucks? And most people understand that in any accident, the automobile driver comes off a very poor second.

Also, the article refers to studies that show that the "new crossing would reduce traffic at the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel by 26%." A better solution is: move jobs from Norfolk to Hampton and Newport News. That would reduce traffic by even more and a lot sooner!

In a paragraph near the end of the article, we find "Congestion could drive up the costs for shippers and truckers that use the port." Yea? So what? There are two approaches: first, increase the price of the goods to cover the costs, and second, the port is subsidized by the state. In either case, the solution should come from the shippers and truckers or from the state, not from the locals.

See also:

Part I
Part III
Part IV
Part V & VI